SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
More than a decade ago, many Democrats still in office now went along with Gorsuch as he was unanimously confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006. Things are different today, ahead of his hearing for the highest court in the land.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed deep doubts during a press conference last Wednesday about the nominee and asserted Gorsuch "may act like a neutral, calm judge," but "his record and his career clearly show he harbors a right wing, pro-corporate, special interest agenda."
[...] Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy said he would demand "real answers" to questions he has about Gorsuch's judicial philosophy.
"I hope next week, when the president's Supreme Court nominee will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he provides transparent, truthful answers to Senators' questions," Leahy said in a statement. "I will insist on real answers from Judge Neil Gorsuch, because there are real concerns about his record and his judicial philosophy."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:11AM (1 child)
On the differences in morals between liberals and conservatives, I highly recommend The Righteous Mind [righteousmind.com]. It talks a lot about science on what morals are and how they affect our decisions, but the main political argument is that conservatives have more moral principles: liberals generally care just about avoiding harm and maintaining liberty while conservatives also care about values like loyalty and respect for authority. Which results in liberals not understanding conservatives. I'm not convinced that really explains the modern Republican party, but it's interesting and likely a useful point of view to have when arguing with conservatives.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:22AM
They aren't more moral, they have more morals. There is a difference. And it's hilarious that they think having more rules as opposed to better rules is the way to go, when their own hero Jesus broke it all down to the Golden Rule.
Honestly I think this is a case of quality over quantity: you can derive all you need from some version of reciprocal ethics. Loyalty may or may not be a part of this, and certainly should not supercede actual harm. Authority gets respect when it earns it; the idea that authority figures are to be respected simply *because* they are authority figures is a complete non-sequitur, and in my experience, leads to much *less* moral behavior on average.
I actually don't think "respect for authority qua authority" should be counted as a moral value. You can respect an authority because of how or why s/he got there, something like "you respect someone with a black belt not because of the belt but because of what it means to have the belt." But straight up "respect for authority" for its own sake instantly and globally reduces to "might makes right."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...